The Mark of God

[acmanko]

on Cain. Anybody have any ideas as to what it is/was. The two most popular theories are somewhat friviolous.

[Carnak]

Who was the mark of cain supposed to warn is the bigger question. Similar to who did Adam and Eve's kids marry?

I once argued Neanderthals with a pentacostal guy.

[chillbilly]

It's in Revelations.
You're supposed to be a devout Catholic.
Look it up.
You just want to argue the interpretations.

[Carnak]

Cain's descendents all died

[James 3528]

They never needed a tanning bed.

[acmanko]

They never needed a tanning bed. very good, marked for life.

[bootlen]

They never needed a tanning bed.

I take from this that you are referring to our African friends. If I am assuming too much, let me know.


BUT, dark skin is not a "mark of God". Some think that Ham, son of Noah is the beginning of the black skinned groups because supposedly his descendants settled in Ethiopia. As I recall, there is evidence of their settling there but nothing definitive.

Just so ya know, a black baby was born to a stark white UK couple some years ago. It was confirmed by DNA tests that the white parents are indeed the parents but both had recessive genes that became dominant in their child.

Hate to tell ya, James. You also have those recessive genes...unless you don't need a tanning bed either.

[glennac]

Wow, we are all chatching on to the truth about Cain

[James 3528]

Just so ya know, a black baby was born to a stark white UK couple some years ago. It was confirmed by DNA tests that the white parents are indeed the parents but both had recessive genes that became dominant in their child.

Hate to tell ya, James. You also have those recessive genes...unless you don't need a tanning bed either.Urban legend

[glennac]

Well Bootlen, I see you have a moderate strict in you. That will probably bode well for you in the here after. I can't resist kidding around a little though even if I am a little intemperate. However I don't believe that you will find recessive genes in most of us otherwise that odyssey would happen more often.

[bootlen]

Got some details wrong but no urban legend.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9438648/

Stand by.

[bootlen]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/mixedtwins.asp

Well. There ya have it.

[James 3528]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/mixedtwins.asp

Well. There ya have it.
You have an anomaly of examples mixed up that have different explanations.

[bootlen]

You have an anomaly of examples mixed up that have different explanations.


Yeah. So?

[acmanko]

The article doesn't mention anything about Stark white , it says a woman of mixed race. I suppose you believe the Mark of God pertains to Jewish people.

[bootlen]

The article doesn't mention anything about Stark white , it says a woman of mixed race. I suppose you believe the Mark of God pertains to Jewish people.

Hey, I said I had my details wrong. Ya want blood?

[glennac]

[quote=bootlen;1492766]................................
Hate to tell ya, James. You also have those recessive genes...unless you don't need a tanning bed either.[/quote

Bootlen, I think you need to retract that statement. It bothers me that you have fallen for the liberal line that we are all pretty much alike. We (ethnic groups) are different that's why we all can't get along that well. This is a fact let's just leave it at that.

[Carnak]

I take from this that you are referring to our African friends. If I am assuming too much, let me know.


BUT, dark skin is not a "mark of God". Some think that Ham, son of Noah is the beginning of the black skinned groups because supposedly his descendants settled in Ethiopia. As I recall, there is evidence of their settling there but nothing definitive.



Correct, Noah did not descend from Cain.

[scrogdog]

We (ethnic groups) are different that's why we all can't get along that well.

True, but the biological differences are cosmetic.

The differences you speak of are due to culture.

People think differently. That is why we can't all get along. That is why religion fails as a universal concept. There is NOTHING universal in the thoughts of men. There is no one universal thought among whites, blacks or any other race, so how can there be a unifying thought process for all of mankind?

[bootlen]

[quote=bootlen;1492766]................................
Hate to tell ya, James. You also have those recessive genes...unless you don't need a tanning bed either.[/quote

Bootlen, I think you need to retract that statement. It bothers me that you have fallen for the liberal line that we are all pretty much alike. We (ethnic groups) are different that's why we all can't get along that well. This is a fact let's just leave it at that.

Not gonna retract truth, glenn. I'd get kicked out of KA club.

Here's one that's gonna tick ya off, though. YOU have the same recessive genes.

Not a liberal lie. It's biological truth.

[glennac]

[quote=glennac8;1492815]
Not gonna retract truth, glenn. I'd get kicked out of KA club.
Here's one that's gonna tick ya off, though. YOU have the same recessive genes. Not a liberal lie. It's biological truth.



That's your opinon but where is your proof? Like I said if we all had these "recessive genes" then how come this does not happen all the time to people not of mixed race?

[bootlen]

True, but the biological differences are cosmetic.

The differences you speak of are due to culture.

People think differently. That is why we can't all get along. That is why religion fails as a universal concept. There is NOTHING universal in the thoughts of men. There is no one universal thought among whites, blacks or any other race, so how can there be a unifying thought process for all of mankind?

Yes, religion fails. Christianity lived as outlined by Christ allows ALL to get along. Christ is the universal Savior for ALL who would believe. ALL...red, yellow black, white, purple, pink, and paisley.

[scrogdog]

You are just unable to accept that people think quite differently.

That's fine.

To me, we see it demonstrated every single day of our lives. You can't imagine someone who thinks the way I do, so there must be something wrong with me or I have fallen under the evil boot of Satan.

The reality is that we just all think differently. I can't even grasp a mind that would accept things on faith.

We are not lemmings, Boot.

[scrogdog]

Not a liberal lie. It's biological truth.

Not exactly.

While I am of the opinion that a true "purebread" would be somewhat rare in this day and age, a true pure white will NOT have a recessive black gene. Sorry, Boot.

A recessive gene must come from somewhere, it does not just appear.


Like I said if we all had these "recessive genes" then how come this does not happen all the time to people not of mixed race?

Because a recessive gene is not dominant in most cases. Simply having the gene gaurentees nothing.

[bootlen]

I can't even grasp a mind that would accept things on faith.



Really? So you won't ride on an elevator? You don't go to parties?

Just those 2 little items you respnd to in faith. It takes faith to get in a box with the expectation of being lifted or lowered to a different altitude without disaster. It takes faith to go to someone's home just on their word that there would be a party. And there are many other responses you offer up to faith everyday without realizing it.

Faith is not as complicated as you have made it out to be.

[scrogdog]

Right, but that is not blind faith.

I have faith in my parents and many other things because they have shown themselves to be generally reliable over time. It was observable... testable. On the other hand, if you invite me to a party once and do not have it, I lose faith in you. :) Again, testable.

[bootlen]

That's your opinon but where is your proof? Like I said if we all had these "recessive genes" then how come this does not happen all the time to people not of mixed race?

My opinion? Not hardly. I remember enough from Bio101 to recall this.

Doesn't happen all the time because they are recessive genes. That is sort of the point. The odds of it happening are slim to none but it does happen...because those recessive genes are there.

Listen, glenn. I grew up hating people who were not my color. But I got over it. I learned that people are people...just with different ideas about up and down, left and right, inside and outside, top and bottom, black and white. And I learned that in the eternal perspective, none of it matters. I don't sweat the small stuff 'cause it's all small stuff.

[scrogdog]

I remember enough from Bio101

Must... resist... urge... to ... comment... :D

[acmanko]

anyone that dabbles with the genetic code and recessive genes must believe in evolution.

[bootlen]

Must... resist... urge... to ... comment... :D


LOL! I knew I was leaving myself open. But truth is important.

C'mon, scrog. You should have some knowledge of this, no?

[bootlen]

anyone that dabbles with the genetic code and recessive genes must believe in evolution.

Science observes the results of the laws of nature as set forth by Almighty God.

Therefore, your statement has no basis of truth.

[glennac]

My opinion? Not hardly. I remember enough from Bio101 to recall this.

Doesn't happen all the time because they are recessive genes. That is sort of the point. The odds of it happening are slim to none but it does happen...because those recessive genes are there.
Listen, glenn. I grew up hating people who were not my color. But I got over it. I learned that people are people...just with different ideas about up and down, left and right, inside and outside, top and bottom, black and white. And I learned that in the eternal perspective, none of it matters. I don't sweat the small stuff 'cause it's all small stuff.

Bootlen, I hope your not implying that I hate folks of different races? I am proud of mine and I am not ashamed nor do I have "White guilt" which the leftist press tries to cramp down our throats on a daily basis. I respect all indiviuals and treat people as such but we do have our differences wether or not you want to admit it. I'm sure if you went back to heritage of any one giving birth to a person out of their race then that person had a relative within the last century or two who was not of the same race. We can all be compasisonit to those other groups who are less fortunate and have feelings for them but that doesn't mean we have to give up our heritage and not feel proud of our background.

[scrogdog]

C'mon, scrog. You should have some knowledge of this, no?

Sure. You are mostly correct.

If you accept the idea that a true purebread of any race would be somewhat rare, then it is true that most of us will have some sort of racial recessive gene. It is also true that this gene could be carried and transferred for generations even - before the low odds chance of this sort of thing occuring actually does occur.

However, the odds would get lower by generation if it did not occur at some point. Assuming that, for example, a given white person along the line did not bear a child with another race of humans... then that introduces other factors... either strengthening the recessive that was already there, or even allowing multiple recessives to occur.

Science says that the races of man came about just like all other forms of evolution, by environmental factors. So, you were on the right track in saying that Ham moving to Ethiopia is what started the race of blacks. It could not have started due to a recessive gene because there were no blacks yet in that scenario. So, God would have had to, uh, manually insert :) the required gene as 6000 years is not enough time to adopt racial tendencies via environment.

[bootlen]

Sure. You are mostly correct.

If you accept the idea that a true purebread of any race would be somewhat rare, then it is true that most of us will have some sort of racial recessive gene. It is also true that this gene could be carried and transferred for generations even - before the low odds chance of this sort of thing occuring actually does occur.

However, the odds would get lower by generation if it did not occur at some point. Assuming that, for example, a given white person along the line did not bear a child with another race of humans... then that introduces other factors... either strengthening the recessive that was already there, or even allowing multiple recessives to occur.

Science says that the races of man came about just like all other forms of evolution, by environmental factors. So, you were on the right track in saying that Ham moving to Ethiopia is what started the race of blacks. It could not have started due to a recessive gene because there were no blacks yet in that scenario. So, God would have had to, uh, manually insert :) the required gene as 6000 years is not enough time to adopt racial tendencies via environment.

What if Ham was black? And his kids had kids together, intermarried for several generations...would that not build the dominant black gene?

[scrogdog]

What if Ham was black? And his kids had kids together, intermarried for several generations...would that not build the dominant black gene?

Yes, that is a different matter then.

However, God is still going to have to do a manual gene insertion at some point - assuming that the first two people were Adam and Eve and that they were both white. If they were black, hispanic or asian then you still have the same issues just the other way around. :)

[acmanko]

Yes, that is a different matter then.

However, God is still going to have to do a manual gene insertion at some point - assuming that the first two people were Adam and Eve and that they were both white. If they were black, hispanic or asian then you still have the same issues just the other way around. :) I don't buy either argument, whites were not in Mesopotamia, middle eastern men are brown if not black, God was painted white to convert Europe.

[scrogdog]

Right, well I was not exactly *claiming* that the first two people were Adam and Eve and that they were white, I was simply observing what would be the case in that scenario.

[bootlen]

Yes, that is a different matter then.

However, God is still going to have to do a manual gene insertion at some point - assuming that the first two people were Adam and Eve and that they were both white. If they were black, hispanic or asian then you still have the same issues just the other way around. :)

Of course. But that gene could have been inserted at creation OR even when Ham was born. I believe the former. And I believe that to be true of all ethnic stereotypical traits.

[bootlen]

I don't buy either argument, whites were not in Mesopotamia, middle eastern men are brown if not black, God was painted white to convert Europe.

You don't know any Jews, do you?

[acmanko]

You don't know any Jews, do you? Of course I do, Jesus for example

[geerair]

Must... resist... urge... to ... comment... :D
Go ahead. He teed it up for you. :D :D :D

[geerair]

Must... resist... urge... to ... comment... :DAs a matter of fact, I've never seen one sitting prettier than that.

[chillbilly]

Right, but that is not blind faith.
Adding a word to faith doesn't change the definition of the word.



I have faith in my parents and many other things because they have shown themselves to be generally reliable over time.
And indeed, so has the word of God and the historical witness passed down to God's creation.


It was observable... testable. On the other hand, if you invite me to a party once and do not have it, I lose faith in you. :) Again, testable.
So, if a human witnesses miracles or something inconceivable to most humans, your logic is that because it's unimaginable to you, it wasn't related through testable processes?

Faith is faith. You have faith in all scientific data presented to others that you have not personally reviewed but assume to be truth, correct?
You have faith that you will see your friends tomorrow simply because you usually do,
You have faith that your car will start because it normally does.
I have faith in God because witnesses alive during the time of Christ conveyed his actions, his intent and his message. Is that not testable?
More than just a few have testified to the occurence.
What exactly meets your "testable" criteria.


Yes, people think differently, yet from an abstract perspective, we all still think the same.
It's all been done, thought and conceived....over and over again.
There is nothing new under the sun.

[scrogdog]

Adding a word to faith doesn't change the definition of the word.


Faith is faith. You have faith in all scientific data presented to others that you have not personally reviewed but assume to be truth, correct?

In some respect, that is true. But I ask you to undertand that you still compare apples and oranges. For example, there is a HELL of a lot of science that I can directly observe right now. Almost anyone could perform Newton's tests even today. We can observe what he observed. What you are offering me as "observed evidence" can no longer be seen.

Not only that, but a lot more that I do not see now would be attainable if I had the time and money. Heck, I could get permission to visit demos of some pretty sophisticated equipment. I could visit archeological digs and all kinds of things. And guess what? Every time that I did that the observations of scientists would be confirmed (although the theories and explanations certianly would not be).

Where can I go to confirm the observations of the bible? Tell me and I'll go. :)

Plus, even you have to admit that the story in itself is... uh... extraordinary. You don't seem to understand that the more extraordinary the claim, the more unlikely it is to be fact, the more it will be challenged, and an even higher standard of proof (or at least evidence) will be required. Not to be insulting, Chill, but realistically you have got crap. But that should not matter to you... they call it faith for a reason. And we have many words in the English language that mean different things depending on the context applied... so please stop with the linguistic acrobatics. You aren't going anywhere with that. :)

[bootlen]

Of course I do, Jesus for example

You've never seen a Jew have you?

[chillbilly]

Where can I go to confirm the observations of the bible? Tell me and I'll go. :)
Where can you go to confirm the observations of abiogenesis??
The point was that although it ultimately is a matter of faith, there is still evidence regardless of how you choose to classify it.
No one gets to pick what type of evidence is real and/or imagined and yes, it is susceptible to misinterpretation.


Plus, even you have to admit that the story in itself is... uh... extraordinary. You don't seem to understand that the more extraordinary the claim, the more unlikely it is to be fact,
That would be true if we could isolate the perception of what truly is and isn't extraordinary and deem it absolute, but we can't.
You reiterated on this very thread that we all think differently, correct?
A perfect illustration of your statement would be to note that different thinkers have different ideas about what is and isn't "extraordinary. Right?


the more it will be challenged, and an even higher standard of proof (or at least evidence) will be required. Not to be insulting, Chill, but realistically you have got crap. But that should not matter to you... they call it faith for a reason. And we have many words in the English language that mean different things depending on the context applied... so please stop with the linguistic acrobatics. You aren't going anywhere with that. :)
Rather what I have is faith in the testimony and you surmise that my faith is crap. And you don't see how offensive your demeanor is.

This is not acrobatics at all. You make a statement about what is and isn't relevant or credible and you speak in terms of "standards of proof" as if you have something that can substantiate your constant theory that God is not possible or can be rendered non-existant, based on science.
Please do show me the evidence you have that can render the possibility of a creator even remote.
Tell me and I'll go. :)

My perspective is that you are the bloke who is holding the crap. Not me.

[glennac]

Go ahead. He teed it up for you. :D :D :D

I'll take a swing at that. Bootlen what gives you the idea that you got some sort of infinite knowledge with Bio 101. LOL. That's a basic course for sophomoric goofy high school students. If you majored let’ say in genetics and actually got a MS degree in Genetics at some prominent University, then you could get on this form and share with us your infinite knowledge of the subject. But for the time being cut us some slack and stick to something you might have some knowledge of (let me guess). Ok, I’ll cut you some slack. You do have some knowledge of the Bible. More than me but please not on genetics. Now I feel better. Have a nice day.

[scrogdog]

Where can you go to confirm the observations of abiogenesis??

Don't be obtuse. I just can't the the observation/theory thing through your head. Ok, fine. The observation that kicked off the science of abiogenesis is... *drum roll*.... wait for it... LIFE EXISTS. :)

Um, I don't need to go anywhere to confirm that, but I am beginning to think that you do. :)


The point was that although it ultimately is a matter of faith, there is still evidence regardless of how you choose to classify it.

No there isn't. You have nothing. Show me your evidence.


No one gets to pick what type of evidence is real and/or imagined and yes, it is susceptible to misinterpretation.

Uh.,, we ARE talking about *observations* here, right? Not theories... observations. Last I heard, observations are done with the eyes. You have no confirmable observations. Zero.


That would be true if we could isolate the perception of what truly is and isn't extraordinary and deem it absolute, but we can't.

Ah. So to you... talking snakes... changing water in to wine and men being resurrected and stuff like that is *normal*? With all due respect, you can't be serious.


You reiterated on this very thread that we all think differently, correct?

Yes. It's the only shot God has. ;) :p


A perfect illustration of your statement would be to note that different thinkers have different ideas about what is and isn't "extraordinary. Right?

See above.


Rather what I have is faith in the testimony and you surmise that my faith is crap. And you don't see how offensive your demeanor is.

I'm sorry if you are offended, but faith in *testimony* is not confirmation of observation.


This is not acrobatics at all. You make a statement about what is and isn't relevant or credible and you speak in terms of "standards of proof" as if you have something that can substantiate your constant theory that God is not possible or can be rendered non-existant, based on science.

Chilly... serious question. Do you even READ my damn posts? Show me... link me... anything to the one single post in my history here where I have said such things as God is not possible. Admitting the possibility of God does not mean that there is proof, evidence or confirmed observation. You have none of the three, and yet I still admit the possibility.

God may have nothing to do with what you think he is. Consider that.

[bootlen]

I'll take a swing at that. Bootlen what gives you the idea that you got some sort of infinite knowledge with Bio 101. LOL. That's a basic course for sophomoric goofy high school students. If you majored let’ say in genetics and actually got a MS degree in Genetics at some prominent University, then you could get on this form and share with us your infinite knowledge of the subject. But for the time being cut us some slack and stick to something you might have some knowledge of (let me guess). Ok, I’ll cut you some slack. You do have some knowledge of the Bible. More than me but please not on genetics. Now I feel better. Have a nice day.

Glenn, my friend. You are a lightweight.

Did someone say I have infinite knowledge of Bio101?

Do you imagine things? You know...hallucinate?

Cut me some slack, you say? Don't bother...seein's how you're using sewing thread for a rope.

[glennac]

Glenn, my friend. You are a lightweight.

Did someone say I have infinite knowledge of Bio101?

Do you imagine things? You know...hallucinate?

Cut me some slack, you say? Don't bother...seein's how you're using sewing thread for a rope.

Bootlen old buddy, Did you not say that we all have regressive genes because you "learned" that in Bio 101. "My opinion? Not hardly. I remember enough from Bio101 to recall this........" Now you were more or less saying that you had a lot of knowledge on the subject because 30 or so years ago you had this "course" in HS. Lighten up Bootlen, I basicly agree with you on most things but I can't let this slide. We are different and there are differences between different groups. Please don't try to imply otherwise even if it is PC.

[chillbilly]

Don't be obtuse. I just can't the the observation/theory thing through your head. Ok, fine. The observation that kicked off the science of abiogenesis is... *drum roll*.... wait for it... LIFE EXISTS. :)
Um, I don't need to go anywhere to confirm that, but I am beginning to think that you do. :)
Show me one scientific theory not formed in conjunction with observation.
Credible theories are not formed in the absence of observation. Period.
Get that through your head.





No there isn't. You have nothing. Show me your evidence.
Evidence of what? What specific evidence are you wanting to see?




Uh.,, we ARE talking about *observations* here, right? Not theories... observations. Last I heard, observations are done with the eyes. You have no confirmable observations. Zero.Ah. So to you... talking snakes... changing water in to wine and men being resurrected and stuff like that is *normal*? With all due respect, you can't be serious.
I don't give a crap about your "due respect".
Save it for a time when you can be sincere about respect. You have none here.
And yes, I am very serious.
Are you suggesting that no one actually observed Christ's miracles and other witnessed miracles because you or I weren't there to see them? LOL Unbelievable.
I didn't observe the birth of my daughter either, but I believed my wife when she told me it happened.
Just because you are not inclined to believe historical witnessed accounts does not mean those things did not occur.
I mean, who died and left you sole proprietor of all that is reasonable and plausible?
Get real pal. Your idea of reality is as one-sided as it gets.


Yes. It's the only shot God has. ;) :p
More accurately, it's the only shot the Godless give him. :rolleyes:



I'm sorry if you are offended, but faith in *testimony* is not confirmation of observation.
Read my post. I didn't indicate that I was offended. I posted that your demeanor is offensive...and more than just a little bit arrogant as well. I don't care what you post. I know and understand your MO well. The point I was making is how apparent it is that you aren't even aware of how you come across. Not my problem. Yours.


Chilly... serious question. Do you even READ my damn posts? Show me... link me... anything to the one single post in my history here where I have said such things as God is not possible. Admitting the possibility of God does not mean that there is proof, evidence or confirmed observation. You have none of the three, and yet I still admit the possibility.
Yes scrog. I read them. And we always end up at square one with you attempting to define the possibilities and what is and isn't evidence.



God may have nothing to do with what you think he is. Consider that.
Duh. Don't flatter yourself into thinking that you are a rare thinker, scrog.
People just like you and I ponder those thoughts daily.
Not only have I considered it, but I am quite sure that God is nothing like I think he is. Big wup.
I still honor him through my faith and you continually ridicule him with your lack of it.

[scrogdog]

But that gene could have been inserted at creation OR even when Ham was born. I believe the former. And I believe that to be true of all ethnic stereotypical traits.

Actually, I would tend to belive that God would have had to manage things for quite some time. From a genetic standpoint.

Ok, so... first there was Adam. Then Eve was created from Adam's rib, right? So, under normal circumstance, we must consider Eve to be genetically identical to Adam and that is really bad for offspring. God knows this... and modifies the genetic code of Eve. Ok so far. We will call this "God's intervention #1"

Now follow me here... first we must address the question as to why, genetically, a man still has the same number of ribs as a woman. Since God has taken one from Adam. Poof... god has made it so Adam has 24 ribs once again. We'll call this "GI #2".

God now has a man and a woman, and "installs" recessive genes in each for all of the planned races on the Earth. GI #3. (just for you Boot)

Ok, so Adam and Eve had Cain and Able and Seth. Now things get a little murky.

Keep it slow. Are we still all supposedly white at this point? I know that sounds like a bad sort of question, but bear with me... it is science... lol.

I say the answer is probably yes. Ok, now it is said that Adam and Eve had extraordinary lifetimes (except to Chilly) and may have borne over 50 (!) children. Ok... that ability is probably at least GI # 4 & 5 if not a lot more. Unfortunate that these superhuman lifetimes and abilities were not passed on as all other genetic characteristics are, so we'll call that GI #6 times the number of children born... hmmm.... possibly hundrends of corrections.

Which would have need to be done anyway in a major way... because now we are ready to move to the third generation and everyone has to sleep with either thier mother, father, brother or sister. Is that not correct? Not exactly "moral majority" stuff. Did god create others besides Adam and Eve or something?

So, to keep deformities down... God intervenes again to correct "in breeding" within humans... possibly tens of thousands of corrections now.

How am I doing so far? :p

[scrogdog]

All right, chill. I'll leave it at that. I just call them as I see them, bud. If that offends you I apologize.

If you like, I won't bother to reply to your posts anymore. But I think that would be a shame just because you are in a snit lately. ;)

Peace bro.

[TB]

C'mon guys, resessive genes are not that tough to understand. How many of you have kids that have a hair or eye color that neither you or your wife have?

Why was my hair red when my mom's was black and my dad's was blond? Because the red hair gene was in my family line somewhere but was resessed untill I got it. I actually have to go back a few generations to find someone with red hair.

[TB]

Right, but that is not blind faith.

I have faith in my parents and many other things because they have shown themselves to be generally reliable over time. It was observable... testable. On the other hand, if you invite me to a party once and do not have it, I lose faith in you. :) Again, testable.


I could visit archeological digs and all kinds of things. And guess what? Every time that I did that the observations of scientists would be confirmed (although the theories and explanations certianly would not be).

Where can I go to confirm the observations of the bible? Tell me and I'll go. :)

Now your seeing it scrog. The Bible is verifiable, by history, archaeology, astrology, geography, it is philosophically sound, as a collection of writings by different men, over more than 1000 years, yet are in complete agreement with each other, it is unparalleled. It has been shown to be more than "generally reliable", and in fact is only disagreed with by the "theories" of some men--theories which cannot be tested or proven to be more reliable in their constant state of change. The provable reliability of the bible makes it reasonable to also rely on the unprovable claimes it makes as true. If I take it one step farther, I must be shown that the constantly changing theories and theoretical explanations of science are equal in reliability to the tested, tried, proven, and constant nature of the Bible before I can consider the unprovable claimes of science as likely as the unprovable parts of the Bible.

It just simply makes more sense to rest on a foundation that has never had its supports kicked out from under it, wrather than one that constantly has to be resupported. Which car would you drive on a cross country trip, the one that constantly needs repair, or the one that's never seen the inside of a mecanics garage?

[bootlen]

Keep it slow. Are we still all supposedly white at this point? I know that sounds like a bad sort of question, but bear with me... it is science... lol.

No problem. Who said either Adam OR Eve was white? Or any of their kids?

I say the answer is probably yes. Ok, now it is said that Adam and Eve had extraordinary lifetimes (except to Chilly) and may have borne over 50 (!) children. Ok... that ability is probably at least GI # 4 & 5 if not a lot more.

Why. Because you say so? Ya gotta remember, things were a lot different immediately before the fall. Paradise, scrog. They didn't even sweat.

Unfortunate that these superhuman lifetimes and abilities were not passed on as all other genetic characteristics are, so we'll call that GI #6 times the number of children born... hmmm.... possibly hundrends of corrections.

They were passed on. But within the fallen world, those characteristics were damaged. Life was shortened. And the flood made it even worse. The earth was exposed to the sun for the first time. This caused huge damage evidenced over time.

Which would have need to be done anyway in a major way... because now we are ready to move to the third generation and everyone has to sleep with either thier mother, father, brother or sister. Is that not correct? Not exactly "moral majority" stuff. Did god create others besides Adam and Eve or something?

Scripture does not say but I doubt He created any other than A & E. Since people lived longer and had children for much longer, it wouldn't take long to populate the earth.

Example. Take 1 penny and double it everyday for 30 days. What is the total? Now, take a healthy woman who gives birth once a year for say 100 years. And say half of those kids were girls. And they give birth for yearly for 100...and the geometric progression is begun. Population has become formidable in relatively short period of time. It is easy to see how regressive genes can become dominant in short period of time as well. (Later, God told mankind that it is wrong to intermarry. He said it was OK for a time but that time had come to an end. He also used to forbid His people to eat pork but later allowed pork as a source of food for all. Remember Peter's dream?)

So, to keep deformities down... God intervenes again to correct "in breeding" within humans... possibly tens of thousands of corrections now.

His intervention came in the order of an edict that forbade interbreeding.

How am I doing so far?

Seemingly, not very well. :p yaself. :D

[bootlen]

Bootlen old buddy, Did you not say that we all have regressive genes because you "learned" that in Bio 101. "My opinion? Not hardly. I remember enough from Bio101 to recall this........" Now you were more or less saying that you had a lot of knowledge on the subject because 30 or so years ago you had this "course" in HS. Lighten up Bootlen, I basicly agree with you on most things but I can't let this slide. We are different and there are differences between different groups. Please don't try to imply otherwise even if it is PC.

Since when is a small recollection from a class a claim to infinite knowledge?

Take your meds, glenn.

[bootlen]

All right, chill. I'll leave it at that. I just call them as I see them, bud. If that offends you I apologize.

If you like, I won't bother to reply to your posts anymore. But I think that would be a shame just because you are in a snit lately. ;)

Peace bro.

He wants to keep that 200 bucks, that's all.:cool:

[scrogdog]

The provable reliability of the bible makes it reasonable to also rely on the unprovable claimes it makes as true.

I am sorry, but no. There is no logical thought process that carries us from point A to B here. Do you realize how many works of fiction now qualify as factual accounts according to your criteria?

Why can't believers simply accept that fact that God is not testable and cannot be demonstrated? That's what BELIEF is all about. We cannot prove God, we cannot disprove him... we cannot see him. Again, this should not matter to a believer since it is called faith and you are all called believers for a reason.

In my opinion you do yourselves a disservice presenting arguments like this. There is no logic and reason to it, you just assign arbitrary values that suit you to the argument (there are facts in the bible so all of it must be true).

If this type of argument TRULY satisfied you, then you would *also* say, "gee, Scrog can demonstrate that some of the theory of evolution is a flat out fact, so given that, the whole thing must be true."

But, you don't say that, do you? No, you want testing on ALL of it and so do I. That's kind of what science is. We don't infer that something else is true because unrelated other facts exist.

[Carnak]

Boots/TB

Who do you think that mark was supposed to warn?

[ralphtheplumber]

13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

umm.. everybody?

[scrogdog]

No problem. Who said either Adam OR Eve was white? Or any of their kids?

Yes, I don’t believe that it is ever explicitly stated what race they actually were, but it really doesn’t matter. Genetic issues arise regardless of what the “starting” race was. I guess most of the uninitiated might be led to believe this because I don’t think that I have ever seen a graphic depiction of Adam and/or Eve showing them as anything other than whites.


Why. Because you say so? Ya gotta remember, things were a lot different immediately before the fall. Paradise, scrog. They didn't even sweat.

Yes, this is speculation but I think valid speculation. It seems that it would have to be the case in order to build a proper genetic base. This was not my idea either; I read it somewhere that some believe this even though it is not explicitly stated.


They were passed on. But within the fallen world, those characteristics were damaged. Life was shortened. And the flood made it even worse. The earth was exposed to the sun for the first time. This caused huge damage evidenced over time.

Very well. We remove one example of God Intervention.


Scripture does not say but I doubt He created any other than A & E. Since people lived longer and had children for much longer, it wouldn't take long to populate the earth.

Right. That is pretty much what I was saying above. Longer life spans would seemingly be required.


His intervention came in the order of an edict that forbade interbreeding.

Ok, but that only prevents future things from happening, it does not fix the past. So, we do not subract a GI in this case.

My only point here is that God could not have just created and then sat back and watched things grow. He would have needed to intervene several times to create the proper genetic base.

[Carnak]

umm.. everybody?they were warning his brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews?? The mark was to remind them what Cain looked like? Who else is "everybody"? Who was in Nod?

[HVACRoNY]

The Bible say a flood occurred after Cain killed his brother. If we are going to quote the Bible then it says we all descend from Noah and his three sons with their wives. All other life was wiped out. What perfect mark made it through to this point? I don't think one could have. The sources outside the bible (most civilizations) Say that a great flood occurred, and so does the fossil record.

[scrogdog]

EDIT: Whoops.

[scrogdog]

Say that a great flood occurred, and so does the fossil record.

No, I am afraid you are not even close. In fact, the absence of evidence is telling.

Were a great flood to have occurred, there would have been indications on tree ring records. These are absent. There would have been significant out of place sediment deposits - again absent. There would have been siginificant tell-tale isotopes left behind... these are absent.

Sea shells in the desert indicate tectonics, not a flood. Especially considering the absence of sedimentary and isotope evidence as noted above.

As for the fossil records, the claims made by creationists contradict themselves. Flood geology claims that the current sedimentary layers were produced by liquefaction, and that objects caught in the flood (including living creatures) were sorted by mass and location at the time when the flood engulfed them. However, archaeologists state that if this sorting actually took place, heavy, dense objects (such as human artifacts) would be expected to sink to the bottom. In actuality, man-made artifacts are very close to the top of the sedimentary layers.

Further, if creatures were differentiated by body size and density, then massive dinosaurs such as Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus would not be found with other smaller dinosaurs. But, in fact, they are.

It is clear that fossils are not grouped by size and density.

[chillbilly]

All right, chill. I'll leave it at that. I just call them as I see them, bud. If that offends you I apologize.

If you like, I won't bother to reply to your posts anymore. But I think that would be a shame just because you are in a snit lately. ;)

Peace bro.

OK Scrog. And I'm not offended, although I may be in a snit.
I'll let you know if I am, once I figure out what 'snit' means. :D
As for your responses to my posts, I welcome them.
For what it's worth, I respect your point of view.
Peace to you and have a great Memorial weekend.

[scrogdog]

Good deal. Thanks, Chill.

That post you just made right there shows why I also have respect for you. I realize that what we do here brings out our passions and, you know, Boot had to raise the flag on me just a couple of weeks ago. It happens.

You have a great weekend yourself. :)

[bootlen]

Boots/TB

Who do you think that mark was supposed to warn?

Didn't know it was supposed to "warn" anything. I saw it as a "scarlet letter" of sorts. Cain committed murder. Physical death was the penalty for murder.

[acmanko]

Didn't know it was supposed to "warn" anything. I saw it as a "scarlet letter" of sorts. Cain committed murder. Physical death was the penalty for murder.
there you go again, spouting off contradictions. Earlier you said they didn't sweat in the G of E . They also didn't know of death, how could there have been a penalty? Abel's death was the first known to created man!

[bootlen]

Yes, I don’t believe that it is ever explicitly stated what race they actually were, but it really doesn’t matter. Genetic issues arise regardless of what the “starting” race was. I guess most of the uninitiated might be led to believe this because I don’t think that I have ever seen a graphic depiction of Adam and/or Eve showing them as anything other than whites.

U-u-u-h, so?

Yes, this is speculation but I think valid speculation. It seems that it would have to be the case in order to build a proper genetic base. This was not my idea either; I read it somewhere that some believe this even though it is not explicitly stated.

Speculation is right. Scripture is very lacking speculation, however.

Right. That is pretty much what I was saying above. Longer life spans would seemingly be required.

And that requirement was met.

Ok, but that only prevents future things from happening, it does not fix the past. So, we do not subract a GI in this case.

What in the past had to be "fixed"?

My only point here is that God could not have just created and then sat back and watched things grow. He would have needed to intervene several times to create the proper genetic base.

Not at all. He does, indeed, intervene. Daily. But He does claim anywhere in Scripture to have intervened in the issues we are discussing. So I doubt He did.

[Carnak]

Didn't know it was supposed to "warn" anything. I saw it as a "scarlet letter" of sorts. Cain committed murder. Physical death was the penalty for murder.

wasn't he marked so that others who would kill him would be warned that there would be vengnence upon them for killing Cain?

[OregonYeti]

I think religion and politics discussions are a bad idea--it all seems to turn into an argument of who is right and who is wrong, and that's all. That's why I don't participate any more except to say things such as this.

May we all co-exist and respect that we all have heart-felt convictions that are important to us, and that arguing about those things usually gains nobody anything except perhaps a feeling that we fought the "devil". None of us is a devil.

[bootlen]

there you go again, spouting off contradictions. Earlier you said they didn't sweat in the G of E . They also didn't know of death, how could there have been a penalty? Abel's death was the first known to created man!

You never have read Genesis, have you? They had already been kicked out of the Garden before they had kids. The had already been told they would toil...work by sweat of the brow.

You are way more ignorant than most Catholics.

Are you sure you're Catholic and not Muslim or something?

[bootlen]

wasn't he marked so that others who would kill him would be warned that there would be vengnence upon them for killing Cain?

Hmm. You have chapter/verse for that?

[Carnak]

Hmm. You have chapter/verse for that?

Actually ralph had the verses already, can't be too many chapters in

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showpost.php?p=1493940&postcount=61

[chillbilly]

You never have read Genesis, have you? They had already been kicked out of the Garden before they had kids. The had already been told they would toil...work by sweat of the brow.
You are way more ignorant than most Catholics.
Are you sure you're Catholic and not Muslim or something?

LOL Now, that's goooood. :D :D :D

[chillbilly]

God places a mark on Cain so that he would not be killed, stating that "whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be upon him sevenfold".

[tonys]

yeah, real good.

...said boner-bill

[bootlen]

Actually ralph had the verses already, can't be too many chapters in

http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showpost.php?p=1493940&postcount=61

Now, what's your point?

[chillbilly]

yeah, real good.

...said boner-bill

You like boner's a lot ...don't ya' benzine?
2195

[tonys]

deep thoughts from...BonerBILL

[chillbilly]

deep thoughts from...BonerBILL


2196

[Carnak]

Now, what's your point?
Who was in Nod that needed the warning?

[tonys]

you're VERY web-savy...ya'know, for one of THOSE 'guys'.

huh, bonerBILL?

[bootlen]

Who was in Nod that needed the warning?

I dunno. Maybe Winken and Blinken? You looking for names?

Actually probably no one till after Cain left home. He was around for quite a while, I would surmise. You know, people lived for quite a long time.

[Carnak]

Well this verse and others suggests there were other people out there.

You leave Eden and go to "Nod" and you run into some old guy, you would have to go "Hmm wonder if this is Uncle Cain, I heard all the bad stories about?" Who else could it be, why would you need a mark to konw it was him?

There are other verses about angels or spirits marrying daughters of men? Even the question were Adam and Eves kids marrying each other.

[bootlen]

Well this verse and others suggests there were other people out there.

Not necessarily.

You leave Eden and go to "Nod" and you run into some old guy, you would have to go "Hmm wonder if this is Uncle Cain, I heard all the bad stories about?"

Mm-hmm. So?

There are other verses about angels or spritis/demons marrying daughters of men?

Yup. Much later in the time line, though.

Even the question were Adam and Eves kids marrying each other.

Question? I didn't know there was a question. Sure they did. Obedient to God's edict to populate the earth. Can't do that without having kids, now can you?

[geerair]

Originally posted by Carnak: Even the question were Adam and Eves kids marrying each other.



Originally posted by Bootlen: Sure they did. Obedient to God's edict to populate the earth. Can't do that without having kids, now can you?But.......but........but......


Originally posted by Bootlen:

"His intervention came in the order of an edict that forbade interbreeding."



Seems either god or bootlen are confused about what edicts have been thrown down. :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Carnak]

There was the go forth and multiply geer, another reference is after Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed, Lot's daughters thought all of makind except them and their father, were dead, so they got the old man drunk and.........

just a suspicion that there were other people around at the time of the Garden of Eden, just maybe not homo sapiens.

[bootlen]

But.......but........but......


Originally posted by Bootlen:

"His intervention came in the order of an edict that forbade interbreeding."



Seems either god or bootlen are confused about what edicts have been thrown down. :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You are confused because you are stupid. If you could read, I'd say read the Bible and you'd see the timeline. But, alas. You are illiterate.

[geerair]

You are confused because you are stupid. If you could read, I'd say read the Bible and you'd see the timeline. But, alas. You are illiterate.So, what edict is in force?

Incest or not?

[TB]

Boots/TB

Who do you think that mark was supposed to warn?

Holy Smoke you guys move this thread along fast!

IMO you're right, it was a warning to Cains relatives, but we are not told how old Able was when he was killed. He may have been thirty, or three hundred. We are also not told if Cain and Able were the first two children born to A&E, they may have been, or they may have been #'s 100 and 300. The only thing about Cain and Able's ages we are told is that Cain was older than Able. I think it is reasonable here to assume that there was a pretty sizeable population on earth by this time--possibly 3,4, or even 5 generations worth. Since we havent found any fossilized cars or phones, it's probly also reasonable to assume that they didn't have any (you'll hafta ask scrogg, or geer 'bout that though) so it would be likely that everyone did not know everyone else.

I don't think the mark on Cain would have been genetic, since it was not for Cain's decendants, but only for him. This is an illustration of God's love and patience with us. In spite of what Cain did, God still protected and cared for him and his life, when Cain asked Him too.

IMO too, the land of Nod didn't nessisarily have to have been populated at the time Cain settled there. He was after all, afraid for his life, so it would seem reasonable he would settle somewhere apart from the established society. This account was actually written thousands of years after the event, by Moses, under Gods dictation, so the name "Nod" was probly what it was called in Moses' time.

[TB]

So, what edict is in force?




Mark 12:29-31
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

[TB]

I am sorry, but no. There is no logical thought process that carries us from point A to B here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
Right, but that is not blind faith.

I have faith in my parents and many other things because they have shown themselves to be generally reliable over time. It was observable... testable. On the other hand, if you invite me to a party once and do not have it, I lose faith in you.

So you're saying your trust in you parents is illogical? You may need to read my post again, I never claimed that because some truths exist then therefore all of it is true. (I agree though, a claim like that would be illogical--even absurd) Perhaps I should have used the word "falsifiable". My point is that since the falsifiable parts of the Bible are all proven true, then it is reasonable to assume the non-falsifiable parts are true as well. That is where faith comes in, but it is not a blind faith, it is a faith based on compelling evidence.

The evidence supporting the reasonable assumtion of truth for the non-falsifiable portions of the Bible is greater than the evidence we generally demand to see before we accept other claimes as true--such as scientific observation for instance.

[scrogdog]

then it is reasonable to assume the non-falsifiable parts are true as well.

No. It is not reasonable at all.

The faith in my parents is observed over time, that is true. But, because I may see it demonstrated that my Dad is, say, good with money, that does not mean that I will have faith in anything else BUT that, until those other things are also demonstrated.

Because I like to play golf does NOT mean that it reasonable to assume that I like to play ALL sports.

Because I have faith that my mom will cook a good meal that night does NOT mean that I have faith that she is a wise family spender.

You take completely unrelated concepts and try to connect them. It doesn't work. :)

What possible connection could there really be between miracles and an accurate account of history? Again, by your criteria, The Brother Karmazov should be considered a factual account since I can demonstrate WITHOUT A DOUBT that it contains factual history, and and accurate portrayal of social and political matters for the time period. So, given that all those facts are contained in the book, then we are only left to conclude that The Brothers Karmazov is not fiction but is instead a factual account?

*cough* Ok, man... whatever. Have fun using that line of reasoning on someone regarding the brothers. :)

See how silly that is? We call that a logical fallacy. A non-sequitor. As I said, there is no logical pattern of thought that carries one from point A to B.

Further, that would leave me with the counter-argument "I can falsify SEVERAL evolutionary concepts right before your eyes - so that can only mean that evolution is completely true, Darwin was exactly right, your cousin IS a monkee, and that Biblical creation has now been soundly debunked even more than before". Does that work for you? Didn't think so. ;) It doesn't even work for me.

[Carnak]

Holy Smoke you guys move this thread along fast!

IMO you're right, it was a warning to Cains relatives, but we are not told how old Able was when he was killed. He may have been thirty, or three hundred. We are also not told if Cain and Able were the first two children born to A&E, they may have been, or they may have been #'s 100 and 300. The only thing about Cain and Able's ages we are told is that Cain was older than Able. I think it is reasonable here to assume that there was a pretty sizeable population on earth by this time--possibly 3,4, or even 5 generations worth. Since we havent found any fossilized cars or phones, it's probly also reasonable to assume that they didn't have any (you'll hafta ask scrogg, or geer 'bout that though) so it would be likely that everyone did not know everyone else.

I don't think the mark on Cain would have been genetic, since it was not for Cain's decendants, but only for him. This is an illustration of God's love and patience with us. In spite of what Cain did, God still protected and cared for him and his life, when Cain asked Him too.

IMO too, the land of Nod didn't nessisarily have to have been populated at the time Cain settled there. He was after all, afraid for his life, so it would seem reasonable he would settle somewhere apart from the established society. This account was actually written thousands of years after the event, by Moses, under Gods dictation, so the name "Nod" was probly what it was called in Moses' time.

Cain sounds like the first born son if you look at where it mentions his birth and what his name means. Abel was the next born.

Seth was born after the murder, Adam was 130 years old at the time. Seth replaced Abel.

[bootlen]

No. It is not reasonable at all.

The faith in my parents is observed over time, that is true. But, because I may see it demonstrated that my Dad is, say, good with money, that does not mean that I will have faith in anything else BUT that, until those other things are also demonstrated.

Because I like to play golf does NOT mean that it reasonable to assume that I like to play ALL sports.

Because I have faith that my mom will cook a good meal that night does NOT mean that I have faith that she is a wise family spender.

You take completely unrelated concepts and try to connect them. It doesn't work. :)

What possible connection could there really be between miracles and an accurate account of history? Again, by your criteria, The Brother Karmazov should be considered a factual account since I can demonstrate WITHOUT A DOUBT that it contains factual history, and and accurate portrayal of social and political matters for the time period. So, given that all those facts are contained in the book, then we are only left to conclude that The Brothers Karmazov is not fiction but is instead a factual account?

*cough* Ok, man... whatever. Have fun using that line of reasoning on someone regarding the brothers. :)

See how silly that is? We call that a logical fallacy. A non-sequitor. As I said, there is no logical pattern of thought that carries one from point A to B.

Further, that would leave me with the counter-argument "I can falsify SEVERAL evolutionary concepts right before your eyes - so that can only mean that evolution is completely true, Darwin was exactly right, your cousin IS a monkee, and that Biblical creation has now been soundly debunked even more than before". Does that work for you? Didn't think so. ;) It doesn't even work for me.

I think TB's point is made if you were to study Scripture along with history. There are well over 300 prophecies of Jesus in the OT. Each and every one of them have come true, with the few exceptions of some of those to be found in Revelation.

That is a phenominal record. Virtually impossible for so many coincidents. It can only mean that what God has said through Scripture is true.

At least I think that is his point.

[scrogdog]

Well, I am sure we could go around and around on this topic.

But, I have to say that I am a bit surprised at you, Boot. I percieve you to be someone who demands strict interpretation of the actual printed words.

Let's take the "suffering servant". Here, apparently, you have made the same leap of logic that I was trying to explain to TB as neither Psalm 22 or the Isaiah passages actually state that they are speaking of the Messiah (to the best of my knowledge anyway - if you would like to quote the passages and show me wrong, be my guest). In fact, many beleive that the "suffering servant" is, in fact, Israel or the Jewish people. And those folks have as much evidence to back up what they think as you do. ZERO.

What happened to strict interpretation? :) You are like a global warming modeler now, providing data points that don't exist to make your scenario work. Of course, just about anything can become true when you are willing to do that. :)

[bootlen]

Let's take the "suffering servant". Here, apparently, you have made the same leap of logic that I was trying to explain to TB as neither Psalm 22 or the Isaiah passages actually state that they are speaking of the Messiah (to the best of my knowledge anyway - if you would like to quote the passages and show me wrong, be my guest).

What happened to strict interpretation? :) You are like a global warming modeler now, providing data points that don't exist to make your scenario work. Of course, just about anything can become true when you are willing to do that. :)

These are just snippets compared to the complete list of prophecies...very small snapshots. When overalid with all the others, the picture is complete. It becomes obvious to even the most casual observer, if he is intellectually honest, that those passages, indeed, refer to the Messiah. And it seems to me that from your post, you have given the title "Messiah" to Jesus since these prophecies are all true of Him and Him alone.

[scrogdog]

Well, if that is your opinion, fine. Just showing that there is no real logic to it.


It becomes obvious to even the most casual observer, if he is intellectually honest, that those passages, indeed, refer to the Messiah.

That's about the oldest and lousiest debating tactic that there is, again... akin to global warming alarmists who seek to quell debate by claiming that the argument is already over.

Now, you can choose to believe that those passages refer to the Messiah if you like, but now you have opened the door to about everyone you have ever disagreed with on what the bible says. You are essentially saying that you can make the bible say anything you would like it to say. Again, fine, but hardly scientific. :)

[chillbilly]

If the bible were to read like a scientific journal would that give it more credibility in your eyes?
Biblical text is not conveyed to the reader with the intention of satisfying peer review. LOL

[bootlen]

Now, you can choose to believe that those passages refer to the Messiah if you like, but now you have opened the door to about everyone you have ever disagreed with on what the bible says. You are essentially saying that you can make the bible say anything you would like it to say. Again, fine, but hardly scientific. :)

Really? What other single individual has lived (and died) in accordance with those prophecies?

[scrogdog]

Acutally, Chill, that is sort of my overall point.

God cannot be demonstrated. You have no facts or evidence. Your belief is just that. It is useless to attempt to show Him using psuedo-science or intellectual sleight-of-hand.

I don't mean that to sound unsulting. I don't think that one is stupid to accept something that can't be shown, it is just not something that I am capable of.

I dislike the psuedo-science because it has the possibility to be mis-used as a tool to recruit. If you want to present your God fairly, you should not attempt to do so with pseudo-science, or by claiming that something is a fact just because you feel like it.

[scrogdog]

Really? What other single individual has lived (and died) in accordance with those prophecies?

Here you go again. What has this question have to do AT ALL with what we are discussing? Whether or not Jesus actually WAS the Messiah or whether you think his life fits a certian pattern is irrelevant to the following question; "does psalm 22 and the Isaiah passages refer to the Messiah?".

Throwing up a smoke screen does not de-rail me from the topic. :)

[bootlen]

Acutally, Chill, that is sort of my overall point.

God cannot be demonstrated. You have no facts or evidence. Your belief is just that. It is useless to attempt to show Him using psuedo-science or intellectual sleight-of-hand.

I don't mean that to sound unsulting. I don't think that one is stupid to accept something that can't be shown, it is just not something that I am capable of.

I dislike the psuedo-science because it has the possibility to be mis-used as a tool to recruit. If you want to present your God fairly, you should not attempt to do so with pseudo-science, or by claiming that something is a fact just because you feel like it.

Chilly's spot on. God has never made the attempt to prove His existance through scientific observation. He is not bound by nature's laws but science is.

And faith has not one iota to do with "feelings". It is a decision made by an individual, with or without feelings. It is not unlike a first ride on an elevator. While feelings may or may not be a by-product, faith is not dependent on those feelings.

[chillbilly]

Acutally, Chill, that is sort of my overall point.

God cannot be demonstrated. You have no facts or evidence. Your belief is just that. It is useless to attempt to show Him using psuedo-science or intellectual sleight-of-hand.

I don't mean that to sound unsulting. I don't think that one is stupid to accept something that can't be shown, it is just not something that I am capable of.

I dislike the psuedo-science because it has the possibility to be mis-used as a tool to recruit. If you want to present your God fairly, you should not attempt to do so with pseudo-science, or by claiming that something is a fact just because you feel like it.


OK Agreed. God cannot be shown and biblical text indicates that there will be nothing tendered to definitively show that God exists, other than what is written in biblical text, which is not verifiable.
We are in agreement. :p
I have my faith in God and you have your faith in whatever testable science you believe to be true.

[scrogdog]

It is not unlike a first ride on an elevator.

How do you figure that? I can wait on the bottom floor for hours if I so choose watching people safely use the elevator. I can also run up the stairs to confirm that passangers are safely delivered. Then I can go back down the stairs and observe the same people that went up an hour ago are now coming down.

Not even close. :)

[chillbilly]

How do you figure that? I can wait on the bottom floor for hours if I so choose watching people safely use the elevator. I can also run up the stairs to confirm that passangers are safely delivered. Then I can go back down the stairs and observe the same people that went up an hour ago are now coming down.

Not even close. :)


Let me play "devils advocate" here.
You are saying that because you have witnessed the elevator reaching it's destination safely each and every time indicates that it will always do so??

Couldn't resist.

[bootlen]

How do you figure that? I can wait on the bottom floor for hours if I so choose watching people safely use the elevator. I can also run up the stairs to confirm that passangers are safely delivered. Then I can go back down the stairs and observe the same people that went up an hour ago are now coming down.

Not even close. :)

And from that observation you could tell what you had to do to make it happen having never been inside the elevator car?

[scrogdog]

God cannot be shown and biblical text indicates that there will be nothing tendered to definitively show that God exists, other than what is written in biblical text, which is not verifiable.

Excellent.

I respect this position a lot. If you want to believe, then BELEIVE. :)

You could say, "I don't give a crap what you, Geer or science says, man was placed on the Earth by God 6000 years ago. I don't care about your "counter-arguments". I don't care whether or not I can explain things like the arrangement of fossils, because... guess what? We are talking about things here that are not meant to be undertood by science! So, why the holy hell should I use that to determine the nature of all things? You think you are so smart scrog, but all you are doing here is demonstrating your limited patterns of thought.

Someday, I will understand all. And you won't."

Now what am I going to say to that? :D

[scrogdog]

And from that observation you could tell what you had to do to make it happen having never been inside the elevator car?

Irrelevant. I still know a lot more about the elevator ride than what you are comparing it to.

[bootlen]

Irrelevant. I still know a lot more about the elevator ride than what you are comparing it to.


True. But you still have to get in the car to see what you have to do to make it work. In other words, just getting in the car accomplishes nothing. The experience is part and parcel to the whole issue.

[chillbilly]

Excellent.

I respect this position a lot. If you want to believe, then BELEIVE. :)

You could say, "I don't give a crap what you, Geer or science says, man was placed on the Earth by God 6000 years ago. I don't care about your "counter-arguments". I don't care whether or not I can explain things like the arrangement of fossils, because... guess what? We are talking about things here that are not meant to be undertood by science! So, why the holy hell should I use that to determine the nature of all things? You think you are so smart scrog, but all you are doing here is demonstrating your limited patterns of thought.
Someday, I will understand all. And you won't."
Now what am I going to say to that? :D

LOL I understand that question and have considered it myself .
What would you say? Probably something like... "chilly, you're a boob" and that would be OK.
Now, the chilly, "you're stupid for having faith and expressing it" is not OK.

[scrogdog]

Actually, in that case I might admit that my patterns of thought are indeed limited. I guess I am more or less acknowledging that every time that I remind people that I am incapable of accepting things on faith.

Obviously others can, so I must be "special". :)

[chillbilly]

Actually, in that case I might admit that my patterns of thought are indeed limited. I guess I am more or less acknowledging that every time that I remind people that I am incapable of accepting things on faith.

Obviously others can, so I must be "special". :)

Yeah, you're special alright. ;)

[TB]

"How special is scrog", Jesus was asked. "This special", Jesus replied, and he streched out His hands,

and died.

[acmanko]

why didn't God just tell Able to hide, after all He should have know in advance that Cain was going to kill him. Kind of ridiculous reason for marking somebody.

[chillbilly]

why didn't God just tell Able to hide, after all He should have know in advance that Cain was going to kill him. Kind of ridiculous reason for marking somebody.

And why would Cain have been less preferred by God than Abel?
Maybe he was a Muslim. :D :D :D :D :D

[bootlen]

why didn't God just tell Able to hide, after all He should have know in advance that Cain was going to kill him. Kind of ridiculous reason for marking somebody.

He also knew YOU would be born. That's TWO questions I have for Him.

[chillbilly]

He also knew YOU would be born. That's TWO questions I have for Him.

LOL!

[acmanko]

He also knew YOU would be born. That's TWO questions I have for Him. You gonna lose your 200.00 so you might as well pay up.

[chillbilly]

You gonna lose your 200.00 so you might as well pay up.
I would tell you to refer to member rules if you were a member but....you're

NOT

[TB]

Cain sounds like the first born son if you look at where it mentions his birth and what his name means. Abel was the next born.

Seth was born after the murder, Adam was 130 years old at the time. Seth replaced Abel.

Good points Carnak, thank you, I agree it does seem safe to assume Cain was Eve's first son, and Abel was likely the next son, but beyond that is speculation of their ages (we aren't told how long Adam lived before Cain was born) and I hesitate to make those kind of assumtions. My intent was to point out the erroniouse thinking we all fall into when we make assumtions, like how many people could have been alive at the time.

[TB]

Scrog, your straw men aren't working. If we take your mother, the good cook, and we say that since she is a good cook, demonstrated by everything she has cooked so far, which has been good, then it is logical to assume that the next thing she cooks will also be good if it is something she has allready cooked that was good. If it was not something that she allready cooked, and this will be her first time attempting it, then to assume it will be good is a leap of faith, a well placed faith based on her track record (evidence) but faith non the less. Her ability to cook well does not guarantee she will do everything well, or even lead to the conclusion that she would do everything well, but only because we live in a world where there is demonstratable, regular occurances of people who do some things well but not others. If we lived in a world where everyone either did everything well, or did nothing well, then it would be reasonable to conclude that because your mom cooked well, she would also do everything else well. You are useing our nature to conclude that her ability to cook well does not guarantee she would do other things well, and that is accurate when dealing with people, who live in this world.

God used fallible people to ghost write a book that does not show the inaccuracies that would be expected in a book written by people in the same time, let alone over thousands of years. The fact that there are some accuracies in it does not guarantee complete accuracy from people, but it does guarantee that if God actually is the author of the Bible, He will continue to be accurate in it. Since there are no inaccuracies in the Bible, (other than an occasional error in translatede script, which do not alter the message at all) we are one step closer to concluding that God actually did author the Bible. the prophesies contained in the Bible, written centuries before they were fulfilled, lead only to the conclusion that God did author it. You pointed out there were some question as to Ps. 22 actually being a prophesy. Jesus believed it was, thats why He quoted the first vs. of it from the cross, where the entire scene it describes was being played out right in front of the eyes of those there, without exception. The Pharisees would have had that entire chapter memorized, and Jesus knew that. Thats why all he had to do was quote the first vs. to bring it to their mind. Isaiah 53 can only be talking of Jesus, since no mere man can carry the sins of us all.

If God did author the Bible, then we would expect that there would be 100% accuracy in the things that it claimes are true. Since of the things that are falsifiable, none of them have been shown to be false, it is logical to conclude that the non-falsifiable claimes it makes are also true.

[geerair]

Postdiction.

[Carnak]

Good points Carnak, thank you, I agree it does seem safe to assume Cain was Eve's first son, and Abel was likely the next son, but beyond that is speculation of their ages (we aren't told how long Adam lived before Cain was born) and I hesitate to make those kind of assumtions. My intent was to point out the erroniouse thinking we all fall into when we make assumtions, like how many people could have been alive at the time.

We only know Cain was born after Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden, and the murder took place sometime in the first 130 years.

In your opinion does the second chapter of Genesis contain a summary of the first chapter?

Is Adam the same man created in the first chapter vs 26,27 & 28?

[chillbilly]

Postdiction.

No such word.

Try separating the two words and then see what you come up with.
:rolleyes:

[TB]

We only know Cain was born after Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden, and the murder took place sometime in the first 130 years.

In your opinion does the second chapter of Genesis contain a summary of the first chapter?

Is Adam the same man created in the first chapter vs 26,27 & 28?

Yes, I think so. I think the first chapter is a kind of outline, or overview of creation, and the "man" referred to there was "Mankind", then chapter 2 goes back and spends a little more time on some of the details, the creation of Adam and Eve, and the specific care taken, described in the creation of them. After Eve was created, she was given the gender name "woman" because she was taken from man, and the specific name "Eve" because she was (or would be) the mother of all people.


One of the theories I play with on the "ages" question, is that we know Adam was 130 when Seth was born, which was after the murder of Abel. Cain was the oldest we are told about, possibly Adam and Eves first child (after the fall ???), probbably their first son, he was born after the fall and eviction from the garden, but we don't know how long after. Also we don't know how long A&E lived in the garden before the fall or if they had any children while in the garden that did not sin and recieve eviction notices. If they did have kids still in the garden when they sinned, that may suggest why God said, "...I will increase the pain of child bearing..." she may have allready experienced painless childbirth. Another question in my mind this model may answer is why did God allow the garden to exist after they were expelled, placing a guard to not allow them access to the tree of Life, if they were the only occupants of it? Also, it may lend an understanding of who the "sons of God" were in Gen. 6:2.

Any thoughts on this?

[TB]

why didn't God just tell Able to hide, after all He should have know in advance that Cain was going to kill him. Kind of ridiculous reason for marking somebody.

God, is a King who desires willing servants, not a dictator who requires subjects.

[Carnak]

Yes, I think so. I think the first chapter is a kind of outline, or overview of creation, and the "man" referred to there was "Mankind", then chapter 2 goes back and spends a little more time on some of the details, the creation of Adam and Eve, and the specific care taken, described in the creation of them. After Eve was created, she was given the gender name "woman" because she was taken from man, and the specific name "Eve" because she was (or would be) the mother of all people.


One of the theories I play with on the "ages" question, is that we know Adam was 130 when Seth was born, which was after the murder of Abel. Cain was the oldest we are told about, possibly Adam and Eves first child (after the fall ???), probbably their first son, he was born after the fall and eviction from the garden, but we don't know how long after. Also we don't know how long A&E lived in the garden before the fall or if they had any children while in the garden that did not sin and recieve eviction notices. If they did have kids still in the garden when they sinned, that may suggest why God said, "...I will increase the pain of child bearing..." she may have allready experienced painless childbirth. Another question in my mind this model may answer is why did God allow the garden to exist after they were expelled, placing a guard to not allow them access to the tree of Life, if they were the only occupants of it? Also, it may lend an understanding of who the "sons of God" were in Gen. 6:2.

Any thoughts on this?


In 1:26 it i "Let us make man" , with us being an interesting pronoun being that it is plural. Translations can be pretty profound on a simple pronoun. So the us could mean angels etc. Could be your sons of God from 2-6 or the sons of Gods could have been other hominoids.

If Adam and Eve did have children before being cast out of Eden, then the story would be over. Just let the sin free kids go on until they eat from the tree. The original sin seems to be passed along, inheritted from the father in the way the Bible is set up. Then you have One born who did not have the inherritted sin from His Father.

Before knowing the difference between what was right or wrong, you are llike an animal in one way, you can do things that come natural to you, give into carnal urges and still not have sinned as you do not know what was wrong in the first place. Ignorance is an excuse for the law if you will.

[bootlen]

Also, it may lend an understanding of who the "sons of God" were in Gen. 6:2.

Any thoughts on this?

I don't think so. Angelolgy indicates sons of God are angels because (I think...been a long time since I studied this) of the use of the Hebrew word for "angel" as used and other passages which also indicate "angels" being called "sons of God".

We do know that Seth is the first in the list of descendants of Adam, which indicates he did not sin to the point of disgracing his parents. If any children were born in the Garden but not ejected, then why would they be overlooked in the list of Adam's descendants? Also, if you follow the chronology from verse 3 to verse 4, there is no indication of children before Cain.

And theologians for centuries have agreed that no children were born before the fall.

[bootlen]

In 1:26 it i "Let us make man", with us being an interesting pronoun being that it is plural. Translations can be pretty profound on a simple pronoun. So the us could mean angels etc. Could be your sons of God from 2-6 or the sons of Gods could have been other hominoids.

Only God can create life. No other being is capable.

If Adam and Eve did have children before being cast out of Eden, then the story would be over. Just let the sin free kids go on until they eat from the tree. The original sin seems to be passed along, inheritted from the father in the way the Bible is set up. Then you have One born who did not have the inherritted sin from His Father.

Exactly.

Before knowing the difference between what was right or wrong, you are llike an animal in one way, you can do things that come natural to you, give into carnal urges and still not have sinned as you do not know what was wrong in the first place. Ignorance is an excuse for the law if you will.

NOT exactly. There was only one thing that could have tempted A & E to sin...partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. Eve was tricked into disobedience, while Adam stood by knowing full well what was happening, and also participated. It was his responsibility to tell the serpent to flake off but, instead, he yielded to temptation. He actually sinned before Eve by not stopping the whole thing. It was this "Pandora's Box" that opened the flood gates of tempting sin.

[Carnak]

was not implying angels were making men out of dust boots.

[bootlen]

was not implying angels were making men out of dust boots.

You may not have meant to imply that but you did. "Let us" is an exclusive phrase. Or are you implying that God was asking permission from the "sons of God" to create?

Of course, you weren't.

[oloenneker]

BUT, dark skin is not a "mark of God". Some think that Ham, son of Noah is the beginning of the black skinned groups because supposedly his descendants settled in Ethiopia. As I recall, there is evidence of their settling there but nothing definitive.



Elijah Muhammed preached to the Nation Of Islam that white people where a Punished sect of people whom Allah stripped of their pigment and where sent to the "nothern cold climate" for their sins.

Hence they became "white devils" according to Malcom X.

[bootlen]

Elijah Muhammed preached to the Nation Of Islam that white people where a Punished sect of people whom Allah stripped of their pigment and where sent to the "nothern cold climate" for their sins.

Hence they became "white devils" according to Malcom X.

So?

[oloenneker]

So?

Is that not another theory on "mark of god"?

[bootlen]

Is that not another theory on "mark of god"?

Not in the Bible. Nor in reality.

[oloenneker]

Not in the Bible. Nor in reality.

Just because it is not in the Christian Bible means that it is not true?

The Bible and Reality is somewhat of a paradox, don't you agree?

[bootlen]

Just because it is not in the Christian Bible means that it is not true?

God has retold us all we need to know about Him in the Bible. Anything that is contradictory to Bible is not true. Very simple.

(There's a can of worms for you.)

The Bible and Reality is somewhat of a paradox, don't you agree?

Quite the contrary.

[oloenneker]

I guess you just gotta have faith, huh? If it works for you then good, but sorry, it does not cut it for me.

[bootlen]

I guess you just gotta have faith, huh? If it works for you then good, but sorry, it does not cut it for me.

One day you will know reality. That's when you'll slap your forehead with the palm of your hand.

[Carnak]

You may not have meant to imply that but you did. "Let us" is an exclusive phrase. Or are you implying that God was asking permission from the "sons of God" to create?

Of course, you weren't.


Let us, we should


I guess you are right there boots. It could be taken as "Hey team, lets do this, we should all make men"

I was pointing out the plural as meaning there was more than just God around at the time, possibly referred to later as sons of God, angels, spirits whatever.

[isitfixedyet]

very good, marked for life.amen:D

you ever notice those that are ignorant , and take everything literal they dont and what they should not take literal they do, but this one is like the writing on the wall,,,, cool post:D those furthest from understanding need to pray for it,,,and those that confuse others with it,,, need to be more hlpful to those that dont instead of acting like a know it all ,,lol its like taking a v out of hvac? lol

[Carnak]

isyouworkingyet or isyoufiredagain

[bootlen]

Let us, we should


I guess you are right there boots. It could be taken as "Hey team, lets do this, we should all make men"

I was pointing out the plural as meaning there was more than just God around at the time, possibly referred to later as sons of God, angels, spirits whatever.

I knew that. I was being facetious to try to make a point. But angels were not in on the creative process since only God can create life. "Let us" refers to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

John 1 talks about Jesus being there at creation and John 14, He promises to send "another Helper" (another meaning another EXACTLY like Me in every way according to proper interpretation of Greek...referring to the Holy Spirit) after He leaves. These were the "us" in Genesis.

[TB]

Let us make man...

In this phrase in Gen. 1:26, we see a Hebrew figure of speech used only when referring to God. The pronoun is plural, yet the verb is singular. In Hebrew the rule is when an act is done by more than one person, the verb is plural, but because God's triune nature was known in the Old Testament, they used a singular verb when describing an act that only one God did, yet a plural pronoun, because it was done by a God of three persons.

[TB]

I don't think so. Angelolgy indicates sons of God are angels because (I think...been a long time since I studied this) of the use of the Hebrew word for "angel" as used and other passages which also indicate "angels" being called "sons of God".

I'm sure you know the arguments against that definition too. My speculation is merely that, speculation I sat in a class taught by Don Stewart on this very subject. He did an excellent job covering four of the most popular opinions of who the "sons of God" were, (Mine here was not one of them) and the reasons for and against each of the four opinions. In the end there was no difinative conclusion drawn.


We do know that Seth is the first in the list of descendants of Adam, which indicates he did not sin to the point of disgracing his parents. If any children were born in the Garden but not ejected, then why would they be overlooked in the list of Adam's descendants? Also, if you follow the chronology from verse 3 to verse 4, there is no indication of children before Cain.
The lineages given were not all the desendants of A&E, but only the lineage of Jesus was drawn completely.


And theologians for centuries have agreed that no children were born before the fall.
Theologians have also agreed for centuries that salvation is earned through baptism, and forgiveness of sins earned through baptism and communion, (Some theologians have thrown other things into that mix too), but we know that is false too.

I'm not arguing for my speculation. I think the way Mr. Stewart left our class was the best...we just don't know.

But I appreciate the input. thanks.

[acmanko]

don't think so. Angelolgy indicates sons of God are angels because (I think...been a long time since I studied this) of the use of the Hebrew word for "angel" as used and other passages which also indicate "angels" being called "sons of God".


enlighten me, ye that haveth said this stupidity, Lucifer and Jesus are Brothers?



your Interpretations will have you burning

[bootlen]

don't think so. Angelolgy indicates sons of God are angels because (I think...been a long time since I studied this) of the use of the Hebrew word for "angel" as used and other passages which also indicate "angels" being called "sons of God".


enlighten me, ye that haveth said this stupidity, Lucifer and Jesus are Brothers?



your Interpretations will have you burning

barking up the wrong tree, ac. Mormon doctrine teaches this.

[TB]

dubble post

[TB]

From the Mormon website...


http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/d/27

Satan. The devil is the enemy of righteousness and of those who seek to do the will of God. He is literally a spirit son of God and was at one time an angel in authority in the presence of God (Isa. 14: 12; 2 Ne. 2: 17).


http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/j/22

Christ (a Greek word) and Messiah (a Hebrew word) mean “the anointed.” Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of the Father in the spirit

[sysint]

Let us make man...

In this phrase in Gen. 1:26, we see a Hebrew figure of speech used only when referring to God. The pronoun is plural, yet the verb is singular. In Hebrew the rule is when an act is done by more than one person, the verb is plural, but because God's triune nature was known in the Old Testament, they used a singular verb when describing an act that only one God did, yet a plural pronoun, because it was done by a God of three persons.

Goodness no.

On the use of Elohim:
Psalms 8:5
1 Samuel 5:7
1 Kings 11:5
Daniel 1:2
Psalms 82:1
Pslams 82:6
Exodus 4:16
Exodus 7:1

"Smith's Bible Dictionary:
Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures two chief names are used for the one true divine Being--ELOHIM, commonly translated God in our version, and JEHOVAH, translated Lord. Elohim is the plural of Eloah (in Arabic Allah); it is often used in the short form EL (a word signifying strength, as in EL-SHADDAI, God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs.
Ge 17:1; 28:3, Ex 6:3 The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that of strength, power of effect, and that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world. The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

Your plural/singular is the same as Genesis 39:2 and you don't have a problem understanding that correctly.

[TB]

Elohim refers to a plural God, not nessesarily a triune nature, just more than a singular one, and when a plural natured God, does a singular action, it is noted in the pronoun/verb forms, and differentiated from a group of gods doing plural actions

[sysint]

So, you didn't read any of the above verses.

Sorry, some of them are in direct contradiction of your statement that you now have made twice. Just the facts.

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures: ´elo·him': "It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute." To illustrate this, the title ´elo·him' appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is singular. (Genesis 1:1-2:4) Thus, that publication concludes: "[´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty."

[HVACRoNY]

[QUOTE=Carnak;1497194]In 1:26 it i "Let us make man" , with us being an interesting pronoun being that it is plural. Translations can be pretty profound on a simple pronoun. So the us could mean angels etc. Could be your sons of God from 2-6 or the sons of Gods could have been other hominoids.


I think that it is great to talk about this. I also think that the bible interprets the bible and in Gods infinite wisdom He saw this one coming. In the book of Hebrews Chapter 1 God the Father is talking to (His first born Son, His Only begotten Son) Jesus. The Father says " Let all God's angels worship Him (Jesus)"
The Father also is speaking in verse 10 and says while speaking to the Son "In the beginning, O lord, you laid the foundation of the earth...."

In verse 13 The Father is speaking about the Son and says "To which of the angels did God ever say "Sit at my right hand ....."

The Father is defining the difference between the angels and His Son

I believe God the Father was talking to His Son in Genesis, not the angels.

If Adam and Eve did have children before being cast out of Eden, then the story would be over. Just let the sin free kids go on until they eat from the tree. The original sin seems to be passed along, inheritted from the father in the way the Bible is set up. Then you have One born who did not have the inherritted sin from His Father.

If Adam is the "first man" then sin and death entered all mankind through him, as described in Romans 5:12-20 please also note that this is pointed out here not only to tell us all that we sin and are sinners, but that we have a life giving gift to receive.

The reason I quote the bible is because I have found it to be reliable. I believe it was written over the ages by many different authors and in many languages and I have not found it to contradict itself. A verse that I really like and I believe is one we all apply everywhere on this website is Isaiah 1:18 Come now, let us reason together,"says the Lord. Look this one up. God wants to reason with you. It goes on in verse 18 and only gets better.

[TB]

Excellent Rony! Thank you.

I like Is.1:18 too, same reason, and on that note---
1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,


I realized this a year ago, or so, so I'm still stoked about it, but the word translated as "reason" here is "logos", the same word used in Jn. 1:1, that was rendered as "word".

Have fun wrapping your mind arround that, I'm still trying :D

[TB]

So, you didn't read any of the above verses.

Sorry, some of them are in direct contradiction of your statement that you now have made twice. Just the facts.

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures: ´elo·him': "It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute." To illustrate this, the title ´elo·him' appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is singular. (Genesis 1:1-2:4) Thus, that publication concludes: "[´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty."
The word "elohim" may be used in them, but not in the context of a plural God doing a singular action. Elohim, is a genaric term "god" used interchangably for God, false gods, angels, judges, ect...


430 Õelohiym { el-o-heem’}

plural of 433; TWOT - 93c; n m p

AV - God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 4136 1, godly 1; 2606

GK - 466 { µyhil¿aÔ
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

[sysint]

Actually, yes it most certainly does, so your statement is false.

The verse calling Ashtoreth does for one. So, you have a false god called referred to in plural doing a singular action.

So, not only do I have "god" (plural) doing a singular action, that reference is even a false god.

"....The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God." - Smiths

[The Doctor]

great thread. Now how does this relate to the two marks spoken of in Revelation? There was the mark of the beast in ch. 13, and the other mark spoken of in chapter 7.
I propose that both are spiritual in nature I Cor. 2:14, and apply to all who live on the earth throughout history--either one way or the other. Now while Romans 2:14 addresses those outside the formal knowledge of Christ, I would still posit that the marks apply to all people one way or the other.
Is it time for a new thread or does this question work in this one? And how does the mark of Cain foreshadow this detail found in the last book of the Bible?

[TB]

great thread. Now how does this relate to the two marks spoken of in Revelation? There was the mark of the beast in ch. 13, and the other mark spoken of in chapter 7.

Is it time for a new thread or does this question work in this one? And how does the mark of Cain foreshadow this detail found in the last book of the Bible?

This thread has been pirated a couple times, so one more won't hurt :D

I can't argue with your take on the Rev. marks, however let me through something into the mix. The 666 mark. I believe the bible interprets itself. The # 666 is used three times in scripture, once in Rev., once in reference to the number of a particular tribe that returned from Babylon (I don't recall now, and someone will probly come by and string me up for not researching it) and the other time is in reference to the # of talents of gold King Solomon recieved anually--666 talents.

Suppose the "mark of the beast" was money, or wrather, the love of money.

Revelation 13:17-18
17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.

This was given in a time when people bartered for much of what they had. Nowdays, you almost can't get anything unless you use money.

I have also seen good argument for the "number of his name" part, can literally be calculated from the numerical values of the letters in the inscription of the office of the papacy. From what I have learned in researching occult organizations (of which catholicism is one) I tend to lean more toward this one all the time.

[The Doctor]

This thread has been pirated a couple times, so one more won't hurt :D

I can't argue with your take on the Rev. marks, however let me through something into the mix. The 666 mark. I believe the bible interprets itself. which is why it occurred that maybe these are possibly related to the mark of Cain, if only because our lives will be judged. our lives will be judged finally, and I would say that our lives are judged ongoing, as in the case of Cain.
The # 666 is used three times in scripture, once in Rev., once in reference to the number of a particular tribe that returned from Babylon (I don't recall now, and someone will probly come by and string me up for not researching it) and the other time is in reference to the # of talents of gold King Solomon recieved anually--666 talents.

Suppose the "mark of the beast" was money, or wrather, the love of money.

Revelation 13:17-18
17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.

This was given in a time when people bartered for much of what they had. Nowdays, you almost can't get anything unless you use money.
and as an added bonus, it's a dollar value that floats, or , is predicated on debt basically. Ahh, man in his finite wisdom:eek:

I have also seen good argument for the "number of his name" part, can literally be calculated from the numerical values of the letters in the inscription of the office of the papacy. From what I have learned in researching occult organizations (of which catholicism is one) I tend to lean more toward this one all the time.

Be that as it may, there is a mark spoken of which I mentioned but did not specify--mainly because I want people to look it up and think about it--the one in Revelation 7. Many in the world say they are the elect, the chosen, saved, etc. Do they also have a mark? Could we conclude that neither mark is literal in our earthbound sense, but only in spiritual sense? The spirit of the antichrist is already in the world. I would posit that it is man who says "No, God", as in Psalm 14, and 53. It's just not too complicated, and so I would say that these two marks (of the beast, and of the sealed) are quite possibly only found in a spiritual sense. As you say, the love of money, is a manifestation of this...
what do ya think?

[TB]

I tend to believe you're right. Our names are written in the Lambs book of life (or not) but does God need a book to keep track of it all? I think it is an allegory in one sence, a spiritual identification if you will, but the markes in Rev. are used as a indicator, a sort of identification tag, or uniform of who we are, where as Cain's Mark was of a nature so as to warn people, or tell people that God was protecting Cain even though Cain apparently didn't "belong" to God.

what Cain recieved was this:

226 Õowth { oth}

probably from 225 (in the sense of appearing); TWOT - 41a; n f

AV - sign(s) 60, token(s) 14, ensign(s) 2, miracles 2, mark 1; 79

GK - 253 { twao
1) sign, signal
1a) a distinguishing mark
1b) banner
1c) remembrance
1d) miraculous sign
1e) omen
1f) warning
2) token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

the 144,000 of Rev 7 recieved this:

4972 sphragizo { sfrag-id’-zo}

from 4973; TDNT - 7:939,1127; v

AV - seal 22, set to (one’s) seal 1, stop 1, seal up 1, set a seal 1, vr seal 1; 27

GK - 5381 { sfragivzw }

1) to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal
1a) for security: from Satan
1b) since things sealed up are concealed (as the contents of a letter), to hide, keep in silence, keep secret
1c) in order to mark a person or a thing
1c1) to set a mark upon by the impress of a seal or a stamp
1c2) angels are said to be sealed by God
1d) in order to prove, confirm, or attest a thing
1d1) to confirm authenticate, place beyond doubt
1d1a) of a written document
1d1b) to prove one’s testimony to a person that he is what he professes to be
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

It is spoken in the perfect tence: as in an act having been done in the past, and the passive voice: the 144,000 recieved the mark allready, in the past. It suggests an action that we recieved that has allready been done.

So does 2 Corinthians 1:21-22
21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.



The mark of the beast though appears to be physical:

5480 charagma { khar’-ag-mah}

from the same as 5482; TDNT - 9:416,1308; n n

AV - mark 8, graven 1; 9

GK - 5916 { cavragma }

1) a stamp, an imprinted mark
1a) of the mark stamped on the forehead or the right hand as the badge of the followers of the Antichrist
1b) the mark branded upon horses
2) thing carved, sculpture, graven work
2a) of idolatrous images
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

I have trouble with the postulation that "...if you recieve the "mark" you will be condemned..." Because that would reduce salvation to a wage we earn (or loose) based on our action. The Bible says though that salvation is allready won for us based on Jesus' act on the cross. I don't think believers will even have the option to recieve the "mark" even since vs.15 suggests they'll all be dead by that time.

[The Doctor]

I tend to believe you're right. Our names are written in the Lambs book of life (or not) but does God need a book to keep track of it all? I think it is an allegory in one sence, a spiritual identification if you will, but the markes in Rev. are used as a indicator, a sort of identification tag, or uniform of who we are, where as Cain's Mark was of a nature so as to warn people, or tell people that God was protecting Cain even though Cain apparently didn't "belong" to God.
Yes. Cain's mark was for other people to use as a mark so as not to kill him, so it was literal in some sense in our earthbound sense. I don't want to try to change what the Bible says about it either, when I say that the marks in Revelation MAY not be literal. Then again, they might be literal.

what Cain recieved was this:

226 Õowth { oth}

probably from 225 (in the sense of appearing); TWOT - 41a; n f

AV - sign(s) 60, token(s) 14, ensign(s) 2, miracles 2, mark 1; 79

GK - 253 { twao
1) sign, signal
1a) a distinguishing mark
1b) banner
1c) remembrance
1d) miraculous sign
1e) omen
1f) warning
2) token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

the 144,000 of Rev 7 recieved this:

4972 sphragizo { sfrag-id’-zo}

from 4973; TDNT - 7:939,1127; v

AV - seal 22, set to (one’s) seal 1, stop 1, seal up 1, set a seal 1, vr seal 1; 27

GK - 5381 { sfragivzw }

1) to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal
1a) for security: from Satan
1b) since things sealed up are concealed (as the contents of a letter), to hide, keep in silence, keep secret
1c) in order to mark a person or a thing
1c1) to set a mark upon by the impress of a seal or a stamp
1c2) angels are said to be sealed by God
1d) in order to prove, confirm, or attest a thing
1d1) to confirm authenticate, place beyond doubt
1d1a) of a written document
1d1b) to prove one’s testimony to a person that he is what he professes to be
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

It is spoken in the perfect tence: as in an act having been done in the past, and the passive voice: the 144,000 recieved the mark allready, in the past. It suggests an action that we recieved that has allready been done.

So does 2 Corinthians 1:21-22
21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.



The mark of the beast though appears to be physical:

5480 charagma { khar’-ag-mah}

from the same as 5482; TDNT - 9:416,1308; n n

AV - mark 8, graven 1; 9

GK - 5916 { cavragma }

1) a stamp, an imprinted mark
1a) of the mark stamped on the forehead or the right hand as the badge of the followers of the Antichrist
1b) the mark branded upon horses
2) thing carved, sculpture, graven work
2a) of idolatrous images
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

I have trouble with the postulation that "...if you recieve the "mark" you will be condemned..." Because that would reduce salvation to a wage we earn (or loose) based on our action. The Bible says though that salvation is allready won for us based on Jesus' act on the cross. I don't think believers will even have the option to recieve the "mark" even since vs.15 suggests they'll all be dead by that time.
Maybe those people are already given over(as in Romans 1:28), and are given over in such a way as to be vessels of God's wrath.
I'd often thought that the unpardonable sin was most easily reduced to dying without being found in Christ Jesus. Please forgive me if I have gone too far, so I'll not say that I've made up my mind on that one or anything. But what is it that we could do that could put us out of reach of the all-sufficient and finished work of Christ Jesus on Calvary's cross? ???
But now here those people are who are receiving the mark, Is it still the day of salvation (2 Cor 6:2) .
I would also reduce the entire book of Revelation to two words: Be ready!

[bootlen]

I'd often thought that the unpardonable sin was most easily reduced to dying without being found in Christ Jesus.

I have to agree with you. We are convicted of the finished work of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Rejection of this guidance or teaching, or whatever you want to call it, is the rejection of the Holy Spirit which is the unpardonable sin. You reject the Holy Sprit, you reject salvation. You reject salvation, you reject eternal life.

[The Doctor]

I have to agree with you. We are convicted of the finished work of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Rejection of this guidance or teaching, or whatever you want to call it, is the rejection of the Holy Spirit which is the unpardonable sin. You reject the Holy Sprit, you reject salvation. You reject salvation, you reject eternal life.

Well, I would present that as a question, that is, is the unpardonable sin simply dying without being found in CHrist Jesus? The context does not completely usher in one event at the end of a human life, or so I've been told. So then, I would ask, what would that sin be? No one could really settle on a sin that we could definitely say is impossible to be forgiven of --on this side of eternity.
But as it relates to taking the mark, and whether anyone who is alive in that time can be saved by the grace of God in CHrist Jesus was where I was coming from with this angle.
There was a mark spoken of in Rev chapter 7 for those who are sealed. I will not at all make a contention on the part about 144,000, as will the Jehovah's Witnesses. But what would this mark be? Chapter 14:10,11 indicate that those who receive the mark will have God's wrath poured out on them. God already did that in CHrist Jesus to Him at Calvary, so can they turn back to Him from that point.
I was considering how the Bible interprets marks, as in Cain, and these two in Revelation (ch. 7, and ch. 14) came to mind.

[sysint]

I have to agree with you. We are convicted of the finished work of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Rejection of this guidance or teaching, or whatever you want to call it, is the rejection of the Holy Spirit which is the unpardonable sin. You reject the Holy Sprit, you reject salvation. You reject salvation, you reject eternal life.According to you life is eternal. According to you, the only difference would be "eternal separation from God", not life. Unless you are changing your mind.

[The Doctor]

According to you life is eternal. According to you, the only difference would be "eternal separation from God", not life. Unless you are changing your mind.
Have you ever wondered if the flames have something to do with regret?
It's either we say to God, "Your will be done",
or God says to us , "your will be done".
the difference is whether we are with the source of life, or are cut off from that source. It is God's idea that it be forever and ever.
see Rev 20:10 and Rev 22:5

[bootlen]

According to you life is eternal. According to you, the only difference would be "eternal separation from God", not life. Unless you are changing your mind.

Nope. You forget God's definition of life.

Life = existence in the presence of God.

Death = existence in the absence of God. (Death = hell.)

[chillbilly]

I have also seen good argument for the "number of his name" part, can literally be calculated from the numerical values of the letters in the inscription of the office of the papacy. From what I have learned in researching occult organizations (of which catholicism is one) I tend to lean more toward this one all the time.
What does "good argument" mean?
Does that mean you have evidence that supports an allegation of that nature? Or does it mean that you have speculation that supports the allegation?
What numerical values, what letters and what office of the Papacy are you referring to?

[TB]

Let's just say "convincing argument", because it seems possible. It's been a while since I've seen the text itself, but I believe it was the catholic papal seal, which bore the words "vicar de christos". The argument whent that the numbers assigned to the variouse letters in the inscription, under the roman numeral system, added up to 666. There were some letters without numerical value, which of course were ignored, but the ones with a numerical value did come to 666. Not difinatively convincing, but interesting, and as I eluded to before, since reading the Catholic Catechism, and witches wrightings on witchcraft, I can confidently assert that there is a definite similarity in the direction of the two religions, enough for me to claim they are the same religion. (true catholicism according to the catechism that is)

[TB]

Have you ever wondered if the flames have
It's either we say to God, "Your will be done",
or God says to us , "your will be done".


I like that.


My opinion is that eternity is now, we are simply in that part of eternity governed by "time". The decision we make now, to live with God, or not, will simply be continued after our life within "time" is over. God dosen't send anyone to hell (eternity apart from Him), he simply honours our choice.

[TB]

Well, I would present that as a question, that is, is the unpardonable sin simply dying without being found in CHrist Jesus? The context does not completely usher in one event at the end of a human life, or so I've been told. So then, I would ask, what would that sin be? No one could really settle on a sin that we could definitely say is impossible to be forgiven of --on this side of eternity.
But as it relates to taking the mark, and whether anyone who is alive in that time can be saved by the grace of God in CHrist Jesus was where I was coming from with this angle.
There was a mark spoken of in Rev chapter 7 for those who are sealed. I will not at all make a contention on the part about 144,000, as will the Jehovah's Witnesses. But what would this mark be? Chapter 14:10,11 indicate that those who receive the mark will have God's wrath poured out on them. God already did that in CHrist Jesus to Him at Calvary, so can they turn back to Him from that point.
I was considering how the Bible interprets marks, as in Cain, and these two in Revelation (ch. 7, and ch. 14) came to mind.

I believe the unpardonable sin is rejecting Jesus, or wrather the Holy Ghost technically, but the same thing effectively.


That was my point about "takeing the mark". The qualifying factor on weather we recieve salvation or not is the condition of our hearts toward God, not the position, apperance, or action of our bodies. Now if the mandate was made that before we could get that mark we had to deny Jesus, then of course the un pardonable sin would still not be recieving the mark, but denying Jesus.

[acmanko]

The unpardonable sin is when Adam ate the fruit from the tree of knowlege, seeking the wisdom of God is the true sin.

[chillbilly]

Let's just say "convincing argument", because it seems possible. It's been a while since I've seen the text itself, but I believe it was the catholic papal seal, which bore the words "vicar de christos". The argument whent that the numbers assigned to the variouse letters in the inscription, under the roman numeral system, added up to 666. There were some letters without numerical value, which of course were ignored, but the ones with a numerical value did come to 666. Not difinatively convincing, but interesting, and as I eluded to before, since reading the Catholic Catechism, and witches wrightings on witchcraft, I can confidently assert that there is a definite similarity in the direction of the two religions, enough for me to claim they are the same religion. (true catholicism according to the catechism that is)


That sounds about as reliable as the Da Vinci Code asserting Christ fathered a child.
Those types of innuendo are believed by people.
Ever see the woman at the checkout counter buying the National Enquirer and Star magazines and then telling her husband about the current state of affairs (no pun intended) in Hollywood? :rolleyes:

[TB]

Agreed, and when I first read it I looked at it in much the same way, but if it is false, then why does the catechism teach witchcraft as christian doctrine, and why do the St. Peters square at the vatican have an egyptian obelisk in the middle of it? (the old testament -1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles- referred to them as Ashera poles, used in the worship of the goddess of firtility)

[The Doctor]

I can't speak to all of those items which concern you. Nonetheless, some of those things which you and I find appalling now came as a result of issues which someone dealt with in times past. Then they set up a memorial or monument to remember, and instituted a time of formal rememberance. Time marched on, and before you know it, the form had lost its meaning, but not the adherents who maintained the tradition of the rememberance. Time marched on, and what is left? I bet most people can't give an answer as to the point of those things which would line up with Scripture. It's just the nature of man to cling to types and shadows, and to inadvertently lose the pursuit of the Truth, life in Christ Jesus. Yes, with all of its grace for the struggle today. It's so much easier to see what God did 10 years ago, or 80 years ago.

Not to bandwagon, but a real turnoff for me was the little prayer cards--which actually had a bone fragment of some dead individual attached. Hello, can you say unclean, or pagan, or just plain gross?!!! Pardon my french if I say WTH. It's man in his infinite, okay, finite wisdom. :eek:
Now where does God want to take us today? Regardless of our different circumstances, there is a victory already won over sin and the eternal death of sin. Every day has evil of its own, no need to worry about what tomorrow might bring--we're not promised tomorrow, are we?
So God said, "My grace is sufficient for you. My power is perfected in weakness. To that I would only add in agreement for those of you reading--May the power of Christ rest upon you today.